A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New mandate needed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 22nd 12, 08:35 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default New mandate needed

On 2012-03-22 00:21 , Eric Stevens wrote:

This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and


I don't believe 2 MB. Even with a high amount of detail in the image I
rarely see anything above 500 kB or so. Reducing the quality level to 8
or 7 (PS CS5 scale) is usually enough. I have submitted some at quality
level 6 with little or no discernible quality loss.

Display it smaller as well as at a lower quality level. 1200x800 is
arbitrary. And quite large compared to how most photos are shown on the
web.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.
  #2  
Old March 23rd 12, 12:08 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default New mandate needed

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-22 00:21 , Eric Stevens wrote:

This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and


I don't believe 2 MB.


I've since posted an example.

Even with a high amount of detail in the image I
rarely see anything above 500 kB or so. Reducing the quality level to 8
or 7 (PS CS5 scale) is usually enough. I have submitted some at quality
level 6 with little or no discernible quality loss.


I'm sorry that's meaningless to non-CS users like me.

Display it smaller as well as at a lower quality level. 1200x800 is
arbitrary. And quite large compared to how most photos are shown on the
web.


But are the photographs intended only to be adequate on the web?
Perhaps that's my problem? I'm trying to give an impression of what it
might be like in a print.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #3  
Old March 23rd 12, 01:08 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default New mandate needed

On 2012-03-22 16:08:21 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-22 00:21 , Eric Stevens wrote:

This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and


I don't believe 2 MB.


I've since posted an example.

Even with a high amount of detail in the image I
rarely see anything above 500 kB or so. Reducing the quality level to 8
or 7 (PS CS5 scale) is usually enough. I have submitted some at quality
level 6 with little or no discernible quality loss.


I'm sorry that's meaningless to non-CS users like me.


Then you need to take a closer look at how your software produces
jpegs. Not all of the processes and algorithms are equal. Some are
downright damaging, and the poor results can be seen in the final
product. This might be one of those times you might be able to blame
your tools.

This is almost analogous to the guy who decides to take up fine cabinet
work as a hobby, using only the tools he has at hand, a hammer, a
chainsaw, and screwdriver, when tools which could lead to a more subtle
result might be more appropriate.
Consider finding a copy of PS Elements, or spend a bit more for
Lightroom 4. I believe you will find you will be able to resize and
obtain decent jpegs which maintain more than acceptable quality for
viewing on a computer monitor.


Display it smaller as well as at a lower quality level. 1200x800 is
arbitrary. And quite large compared to how most photos are shown on the
web.


But are the photographs intended only to be adequate on the web?


For the SI, yes. Adequate to good. Those with obvious jpeg artifacts
tend to make one wince.

Perhaps that's my problem? I'm trying to give an impression of what it
might be like in a print.



Who cares what it might look like in a print. 99.9% of those who look
at the image on their computer display are never going to print it.

Anybody who might want to print it can request a full sized file with
minimal compression from you. Even sharing images with friends and
family, they might only want to print one or two images out of a
gallery of 30, 40, or more. You might even offer to print it for them.
Remember once the file is in the recipient's hands and being printed on
their printer, you have no control over the print product.
Edit so the image looks good on a display. If you re going to print it,
adjust to obtain the optimal print there is little point in mixing up
print and display files.


Regards,

Eric Stevens



--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #4  
Old March 23rd 12, 04:02 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,814
Default New mandate needed

Eric Stevens writes:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-22 00:21 , Eric Stevens wrote:

This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and


I don't believe 2 MB.


I've since posted an example.


Which I looked at, and it's not 1200x800, it's much bigger. And the
small example is much smaller. Your problem, based on those examples,
is not the compression.

Even with a high amount of detail in the image I
rarely see anything above 500 kB or so. Reducing the quality level to 8
or 7 (PS CS5 scale) is usually enough. I have submitted some at quality
level 6 with little or no discernible quality loss.


I'm sorry that's meaningless to non-CS users like me.


I could quote the Bibble Pro jpeg level instead, would that help? :-)

More generally -- I'm being specific about exactly what I do with which
software. Other people with that software (so not you in that
particular case) can try what I said, and either find they get similar
results, or not; either result is enlightening.

If you would be more specific, the same thing could happen -- we could
figure out if other people got the same results you report, or different
results.

Display it smaller as well as at a lower quality level. 1200x800 is
arbitrary. And quite large compared to how most photos are shown on the
web.


But are the photographs intended only to be adequate on the web?
Perhaps that's my problem? I'm trying to give an impression of what it
might be like in a print.


For nearly all photos (not for SI specifically, but preparing my photos
for web display in general) I try for the point where extra size doesn't
bring extra goodness.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
  #5  
Old March 23rd 12, 09:39 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default New mandate needed

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:04 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

For nearly all photos (not for SI specifically, but preparing my photos
for web display in general) I try for the point where extra size doesn't
bring extra goodness.


I understand that. Unfortunately I seem to prefer larger photographs,
often with lots of detail, and trying to preserve the visual impact in
an image of small size becomes very difficult. I may have to force my
brain to appreciate a different syle of image.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #6  
Old March 23rd 12, 10:13 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default New mandate needed

On 2012-03-22 19:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-22 00:21 , Eric Stevens wrote:

This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and


I don't believe 2 MB.


I've since posted an example.


Fair enough. I've since posted the same photo at 1200x800 and 300 kB.
(Actually a little larger).

Even with a high amount of detail in the image I
rarely see anything above 500 kB or so. Reducing the quality level to 8
or 7 (PS CS5 scale) is usually enough. I have submitted some at quality
level 6 with little or no discernible quality loss.


I'm sorry that's meaningless to non-CS users like me.


See below.


Display it smaller as well as at a lower quality level. 1200x800 is
arbitrary. And quite large compared to how most photos are shown on the
web.


But are the photographs intended only to be adequate on the web?
Perhaps that's my problem? I'm trying to give an impression of what it
might be like in a print.


I've demonstrated that your photo can easily be edited to 1200x800, 300
kB and be quite presentable (it should be noted that there is nothing
particularly great about the image whether at full quality or lesser. It
is "large" in JPG terms because of the patterns in the image.

If you don't use PS you can use any other editor. The JPG quality
scales (depending on the particular app) is typically 1 ... 10, 1...12,
1...100 all with the same relative meaning/effect.

In the end they all have the same basic result: a smaller file and
usually (in the upper range) little or no discernible photo degradation.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.
  #7  
Old March 23rd 12, 10:16 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,814
Default New mandate needed

Eric Stevens writes:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:04 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

For nearly all photos (not for SI specifically, but preparing my photos
for web display in general) I try for the point where extra size doesn't
bring extra goodness.


I understand that. Unfortunately I seem to prefer larger photographs,
often with lots of detail, and trying to preserve the visual impact in
an image of small size becomes very difficult. I may have to force my
brain to appreciate a different syle of image.


Yes, if you're doing stuff that really needs to be a few feet across,
often it doesn't look it's best at 1200 pixels, I do agree .
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
  #8  
Old March 23rd 12, 10:36 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default New mandate needed

On 2012-03-23 17:13 , Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-03-22 19:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-22 00:21 , Eric Stevens wrote:

This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and

I don't believe 2 MB.


I've since posted an example.


Fair enough. I've since posted the same photo at 1200x800 and 300 kB.
(Actually a little larger).


Sorry, I take that back. The 2 MB image was in fact 2560x1712 pixels.

When reduced to 1200 x 803 and saved at "max quality" comes out to 700
kB. A slight reduction in quality gets it to 300 kB.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.
  #9  
Old March 23rd 12, 11:50 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Pete A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default New mandate needed

On 2012-03-23 20:39:40 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:02:04 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

For nearly all photos (not for SI specifically, but preparing my photos
for web display in general) I try for the point where extra size doesn't
bring extra goodness.


I understand that. Unfortunately I seem to prefer larger photographs,
often with lots of detail, and trying to preserve the visual impact in
an image of small size becomes very difficult. I may have to force my
brain to appreciate a different syle of image.


I'm the same: some of my photos simply do not deliver their designed
impact when reproduced on anything less than a huge print. I absolutely
refuse to compromise on any of my images where this aspect is important
to me. I have one image entitled "Every Pixel Counts" and it has blown
the socks off everyone who's viewed the print :-)

Recently, however, I'm having great fun by exploring a processing style
that relies heavily on selective blurring. When/if I perfect it to my
liking, I'm tempted to create an antithesis to the above along the
lines of "Each Pixel Is Meaningless" :-)

  #10  
Old March 24th 12, 12:12 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Pete A
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default New mandate needed

On 2012-03-23 21:13:43 +0000, Alan Browne said:

On 2012-03-22 19:08 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-03-22 00:21 , Eric Stevens wrote:

This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and

I don't believe 2 MB.


I've since posted an example.


Fair enough. I've since posted the same photo at 1200x800 and 300 kB.
(Actually a little larger).

Even with a high amount of detail in the image I
rarely see anything above 500 kB or so. Reducing the quality level to 8
or 7 (PS CS5 scale) is usually enough. I have submitted some at quality
level 6 with little or no discernible quality loss.


I'm sorry that's meaningless to non-CS users like me.


See below.


Display it smaller as well as at a lower quality level. 1200x800 is
arbitrary. And quite large compared to how most photos are shown on the
web.


But are the photographs intended only to be adequate on the web?
Perhaps that's my problem? I'm trying to give an impression of what it
might be like in a print.


I've demonstrated that your photo can easily be edited to 1200x800, 300
kB and be quite presentable (it should be noted that there is nothing
particularly great about the image whether at full quality or lesser.
It is "large" in JPG terms because of the patterns in the image.

If you don't use PS you can use any other editor. The JPG quality
scales (depending on the particular app) is typically 1 ... 10, 1...12,
1...100 all with the same relative meaning/effect.

In the end they all have the same basic result: a smaller file and
usually (in the upper range) little or no discernible photo degradation.


Not wishing to be argumentative, just reiterating what has been
explained in great technical detail previously on Usenet photography
groups: there are exceedingly few JPEG encoders and decoders that do an
excellent job. Since late Dec. 2011, Nikon Capture NX2 now has JPEG
functionality that is totally unusable for serious photography - this
product by no means stands alone.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SI] New mandate needed Alan Browne Digital Photography 220 April 2nd 12 12:02 PM
New mandate needed David J Taylor[_16_] Digital Photography 3 March 21st 12 02:50 AM
[SI] Shootin Reminders: Mandate: Tubes & Special Mandate PanoMosaicsDUE 2008.10.26 Alan Browne Digital Photography 0 October 16th 08 09:55 PM
[SI] Shootin Reminders: Mandate: Tubes & Special Mandate PanoMosaicsDUE 2008.10.26 Alan Browne Digital SLR Cameras 0 October 16th 08 09:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.